Slashdot Mirror
The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Decay Rates
DarkKnightRadick writes "Current models for radioactive decay have been challenged by, of all sources, the sun. According to the article, 'On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.' This is important because the rate of decay is very important not just for antique dating, but also for cancer treatment, time keeping, and the generation of random numbers. This isn't a one time measurement, either. 'Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.'"
No, this does not get you down to a 6000-year old Earth. Sorry.
Only Pink Hat Linux. I've never gotten more trim since I made the switch to Manlyuntu.
One way to double-check the seasonal variation effect is to look at the output level on radioisotope power sources in spacecraft. Cooper (2008) found no relationship between radioactive decay and distance to the sun.
The sun has a cycle of it's own (about 1 month). They did a much more accurate study and found the decay rate is tightly correlated to the sun's cycle.
Longer version:
The theory now is that it has to do with the neutrino flux. As we move further from the sun the flux goes down by 1/R^2. We saw that fluctuation first. But the neutrino flux also varies with the solar cycle which is independent of the earth's temperature.
This is very very cool experimental physics. Kudo's to them!
Except that closer analysis of the Si-32 data from Brookhaven also showed a 33-day cycle correlating to the rotation of the Sun's core.
-- Alastair
Neutrino density is not going to vary a lot by hemisphere because the planet is fairly transparent to neutrinos. However, the Earth as a whole (including the southern hemisphere) is some 3% closer to the sun during the winter (January) than during the summer.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The trouble is that the effect is correlated with the 33-day rotation of the solar core. If varying rates of nuclear decay affected cancer rates -- which they could -- the problem with measuring it is the speed with which cancer progresses. Since we can't detect cancer the moment a cell goes rogue, any variability in oncogenesis rates over a 33-day period would be lost in the statistical noise.
If you do figure out a way to detect oncogenesis that precisely, you'll be too busy curing cancer to worry much about solar neutrino flux.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
They found the same results in historical data of various labs. That of course does not rule out such a mundane reason, it makes it less likely.
I agree that there are certainly seasonal variations in labs, even if you try to keep it as constant as possible. But for starters the air in the lab has to be refreshed all the time, and this air comes from the outside. I can imagine the composition changes between summer and winter (plants don't grow in winter).
The 33-day cycle another replier mentioned is interesting of course, as it correlates with a solar cycle and no normal human cycles.
A multi-year cycle correlating to solar spots could be interesting.
Effects correlating to known solar flares too.
Overheard in a museum:
Boy: Mister, how old is that dinosaur skeleton?
Curator: [after some mumbling and finger counting] 60 million and four years, eight months and sixteen days.
Boy's mother: How can you know so accurately?
Curator: Well, in the training course they told me it was 60 million years old. That was when I joined, which would be back in January 2006...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"This is how I was taught 30 years ago and it's how I'm teaching you now." - My physics teacher, in an angry voice when I mentioned quantum mechanics during class.
All rites reversed 2010
Finally! When I say "Science has been in a perpetual state of being wrong since it's inception", I can now point out fundamental changes in what is thought of as indisputable information. Understand that I am a working scientist, and my attitude is not meant to dismiss science, but to point out that people are often wrong in what they think is objective truth. The world is a bit too complicated for anyone to claim that they have a thorough understanding of the universe. Not to say truth is unobtainable, there is just a lot of it, and it's hard to really wrap your head around the exocentric universe in full.
"This is how I was taught 30 years ago and it's how I'm teaching you now." - My physics teacher, in an angry voice when I mentioned quantum mechanics during class.
Wow. Was he wearing robes and a silly? Were people kissing his ring?
-FL
TFA seems to assume "seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun" and "something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth" ... e.g. that it is the sun affecting the isotopes. Why not the other way around? I'm sure there are some of these isotopes inside the sun. So if their decay rates change, won't that have an effect on the sun?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I'm pretty sure that's exactly why darkmeleon suggested doing the experiment in the southern hemisphere: it's a great way to either prove or disprove those saying that temperature variation is what's causing the change in measured decay rates: if it's caused by the weather's effect on the equipment, then the effect should be out of phase in the southern hemisphere than the northern. If, on the other hand, the increase/decrease happens in the same months, then it confirms that it's the proximity to the sun that's causing it.
Hello. I am a Bible believing slashdotter. My college degree is in theoretical physics at a state university. My beliefs have never caused a serious permanent conflict with my education. Many people here would tell me that it should. They bash and mock young-earthers or any number of beliefs which *they* see as irreconcilable with science. Just a couple of things I want to point out:
1) Many *many* scientific advances have been made by deeply religious men and funded by a church. This is true historically and into our modern era. If you want a citation, use google.
2) Yes, there are religious people who do not understand science and say things that make us science folk cringe. That is not an excuse to bash religion or faith. That will not endear you to anyone or further scientific education. Remember there are also loony unscientific atheists, agnostics, as well as people of any other philosophical or religious persuasion. Pseudo-science is *not* the exclusive domain of the religious.
Do you want the general public to treat scientist and nerds the way some of you treat religious people? "Hey, a scientist sold me these brilliant pebbles. It turns out it's a crock - all scientist must be idiots! After all, this guy claiming to be a scientist is." We could all list countless failures by honest and dishonest men of science. Would you like the general public to lump you all together with ridicule and discard any science that has ever been touched or used by one of these men? They would throw out all of science! I am asking for you to be kind and understanding. It is possible to point out weaknesses in someone's theory without scorn and ridicule and without trying to trash their beliefs because of it. That will only alienate most people.
Defending an idea with bad science does not make the idea wrong - only the defense.
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"